>My expectation was you were going to do this for the IPv4 code as well;
>is that coming down the pipe, or should I just do it myself?

	yup, if it looks workable for IPv4, i will.

>You are going to pull this up for 1.5, right?

	but given the fact that interval-based rate limitation filters out too
	much (due to limited "hz" resolution), I think so.

>Also, I did not see an answer to my question in
><200007071343.JAA28309@x15-cruise-basselope.mit.edu> about
>why this should enforce a period of 1 second, instead of
>being more generic (configurable period).

	i just do not feel like adding more complexity into it.  do you have
	a plan for real use of "N events in M second"?  if that can be
	covered by "N events in 1 second", I'd say i like simpler one.

itojun